Politics fuels hatred. We can do better.
Politicians and commentators on behalf of political parties rely on demeaning and degrading their opponents to attract attention and gain support. While this has been normalized and even expected in the realm of politics, that does not make it okay. We should not support or enable any politicians from any party resulting to insults and petty attacks to achieve their goals.
If any politician has ever made you feel hatred toward someone else, or a group of people etc., I believe it is time to re-evaluate your priorities and focus on your life and making it better instead of directing your anger and other negative emotions towards people you probably don't even know personally.
I speak from experience, because once I started focusing on improving my life by focusing on what I should be grateful for and taking advantage of my skills, abilities, knowledge etc., I realized that all the rhetoric politicians spew are irrelevant to the quality of my life and the power I have to make the most of my life as possible.
My main advice is to not spend any time giving attention to those who don't deserve it and only care about gaining attention and power, and politicians are at the top of that list.
If any politician has ever made you feel hatred toward someone else, or a group of people etc., I believe it is time to re-evaluate your priorities and focus on your life and making it better instead of directing your anger and other negative emotions towards people you probably don't even know personally.
I speak from experience, because once I started focusing on improving my life by focusing on what I should be grateful for and taking advantage of my skills, abilities, knowledge etc., I realized that all the rhetoric politicians spew are irrelevant to the quality of my life and the power I have to make the most of my life as possible.
My main advice is to not spend any time giving attention to those who don't deserve it and only care about gaining attention and power, and politicians are at the top of that list.
Comments (118)
Much hatred in politics seems to me to be confected hatred, generated by millionaire commentators ensconced in corporate media who have an interest in fueling the fires of prejudice and bigotry to enhance ratings and generate cash.
:up: :up:
Speaking about the US, and at the risk of being called a rabid partisan, I'll quote from a 2012 Brookings Institution report:
Quoting Brookings Institution
This has become even more true in the ensuing 11 years.
To a very large extent, I believe this to be accurate. Not only the US; rabid conservatism has been showing up all over the world, polluting democracies everywhere. Hungary - so recently liberated from what the communist ideal was corrupted to by Russian aspirations to world domination - has recently become the poster child for right-wing assholity. The UK has divorced its entire continent under a conservative government... What did Boris think, he could get people to row the whole island over to Virginia Beach?
This a backlash to everything progressive that's been accomplished in the last six or seven decades. It's aided by electronic media and sensationalist news reportage.
The central problem is not hate, but fear. Fear and stupidity*.
(*This is a brand of stupidity that has existed since the beginning of civilization, but has now grown to pandemic proportions.)
:clap: :100:
This does not work, unfortunately. If decent folk abandon politics, it only makes it even easier for the scum to float to the top. It is a pleasant way to live for the individual, but it does not make things better, but worse.
It would be nice if virtue were rewarded in this world, but it is not the case. The unscrupulous always have the advantage because they can practice virtue when it suits them and become vicious they see advantage in it.
For there to be decent government therefore requires a large majority of decent people actively engaging with politics at every level and trying to root out the demagogues, the corrupt, the chancers, and the snake-oil salesmen. And this oppositional activity must be very carefully examined to distinguish it from the exploitation of divisiveness.
Youre writing from America?
I don't see it as being as bad as you indicate. In the US in particular, conservative values have been marginalized and their expression restricted for a long time. When you hold something down, cover it up, it never gets resolved. It's like how all the ethnic and nationalist passions were held down in Yugoslavia. Once they were released, it lead to war and genocide. Getting these things out in the open is probably a useful, if painful, thing.
I think "progress" is probably inevitable, for better or worse.
Tell about that.
Which specific conservative values have been marginalized, by whom, by what means? The only restrictions of expression I know about is hate speech, and keeping that off the mainstream broadcast networks has not done all that much to suppress it in social media.
Quoting T Clark
I wish someone would convince the book-banning conservatives of that.
Universal access to abortion. Lack of respect for traditional values - patriotism, religion, marriage. Normalization of unconventional ways of life - transgenderism, gay marriage. Anti-family policies. Anti-gun policies. Pornography and the sexualization of culture and children. Lack of respect for the work ethic. Failure to support working people. Contempt for working class and white people.
That's a lot of vague accusations at unidentified perpetrators.
It doesn't really clear things up. (Especially the part about how anti-gun policy hurts families.)
No vaguer or less specific than yours.
My what?
Quoting Ying
It hasn't changed; Texas is well on the way to eliminating fact- or reason-based public education.
Accusations.
Stuff like that should be a crime since it actually is. We live in the information age. Critical thinking is a survival skill nowadays.
It is... but most people lack these skills. I know I am going to sound pessimistic, but I feel that the youngest generation lacks critical knowledge and does not even make a basic effort. I am part of the "Millennial" generation, and I must admit that we are losing both time and hope. The people of my age live permanently connected to social media, and they are so easy to manipulate.
Critical thinking skills are indeed essential. As is walking.
Did anyone 'teach' you to walk?
It's rough dude. People make it out to be a current problem but it's a problem of all ages. Remember that while people might pine for the past, the flow of information was much more controlled back then with tv and radio. I'm not saying it's better now, or better back then. I'm saying it's bad all around.
People fail to realize that critical thinking skills are your first line of defense against bullshit. Not only that, it helps with winning internet arguments. But lets keep that one between us. :wink:
You could have just not said anything and that would have worked better. Try harder next time. Oof almost said something really impolite. Good I caught that one. That one was a bit one the nasty side.
So no answer then? So much for the importance of critical thinking. you take the unquestioned trope that important things must be taught through public education and then refuse to even entertain questions of it.
Almost said something really impolite again. Better to break this discussion off, I guess. :rofl:
Yes Isaac I know you know what I'm implying. I'm trying not to break rules here.
Indeed. We can just let this conversation stand as an excellent example of how to apply critical thinking. When presented with an idea which questions the status quo, ignore it, end the conversation and put a laughing emoji in place of actual argument.
So now what? I win? You win? Someone wins? Someone loses? Who makes the call here? You? Me? Who knows right?
In any case, yes, this shows a failure in critical thinking skills. You think you put forth an argument but a vague implication isn't even a claim. I'd have to guess what you mean and you wouldn't clarify since vagueness was the point. Yeah nice try dude. I didn't even bother responding because it's not worth responding to. See? Bullshit detector in action.
Yes. I was raised by wolves and taught to walk on all fours. Unfortunately, it looks like bullshit actually undermines critical thinking skills, because 'monkey see, monkey do'. One hears a lot of nonsense being talked; a lot of emotive manipulation, including sarcastic straw man arguments for example, and one actually learns to think in those terms rather than critically.
The suggestion is that 1. people are not explicitly taught critical thinking, and 2. They are not able to do it very well.
So your example of something that is not explicitly taught but that people can nevertheless manage, is entirely beside the point. It is an attempt at ridicule that relies on the difficulty of critical thinking and the tendency of ridicule to provoke anger that clouds judgement. And that is your normal way of discussing on this site. It is bullshit, as @Ying has pointed out, and like walking on all fours, it is an inferior and crippled form of communication that you have presumably picked up from your environment. That this can happen to you is evidence in favour of the explicit teaching of critical thinking.
No the suggestion includes (3) that we should therefore teach them to do it. That does not follow.
Quoting unenlightened
No it isn't. It is exactly the point. There are things which, in the right environment, children are quite capable of learning for themselves without pedagogic teaching. The fact that such things exist means that anyone wanting to argue that a skill needs pedagogic teaching has to also argue that the skill in question is not one of these.
Quoting unenlightened
Nonsense. It's ridiculing a ridiculous argument. @Ying spouted off an unexamined cultural dogma in an argument about critical thinking. It was a stupid thing to do and I appropriately ridiculed it.
The whole point of the comment (and controversy) around what the Republicans are wanting to do in Texas is to prevent the questioning of culturally embedded dogma. To replace that with a different culturally embedded dogma is the height of ridiculousness.
Quoting unenlightened
That you can claim such a thing is evidence of the failure on your part to pick it up.
Note your entire post consists of a personal attack against my general style, and not a shred of evidence, critical analysis, or argument on the subject at hand. Exactly the approach you're criticising.
You think I was spouting off an unexamined cultural dogma? Me? That already is quite the assumption. Then you assume I do stupid things. Another one. You also assumed I was a fit target to ridicule, as bullies do. Do you know what I do in my free time? I use Bing Chat as a kung fu training dummy to practice my old school style of rhetorics on. You know, what the Romans used. To get each others heads chopped off. I used to do that on the old forum too, on trolls. Anyway, my practice run (There's an evaluation at the end since I doubt you know much about discourse analysis):
[hide="Reveal"]*A discussion on if humanity should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber, where I focus on making an argument with lots of pathos*
[user]: Do you think humanity should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber?
[assistant]: Thats a very interesting and philosophical question. The phrase dogmatic slumber was used by Immanuel Kant to describe his state of mind before he read David Humes critique of causality12. Kant was impressed by Humes skepticism and challenged himself to find a way to justify the validity of human knowledge and reason1. He developed his own system of transcendental idealism, which aimed to reconcile rationalism and empiricism2.
[user]: I would say that black box AI and climate change warrants humanity removing the shackles of it's self incurred nonage and it should awaken from it's dogmatic slumber
[assistant]: I understand your point of view. You seem to be concerned about the challenges and risks posed by black box AI and climate change, and you think that humanity needs to overcome its dogmatic beliefs and assumptions in order to face them. Black box AI is any artificial intelligence system whose inputs and operations arent visible to the user or another interested party1. It can be difficult to trust, explain, or control such systems, especially when they are involved in critical domains such as health care, finance, or security23. Climate change is a global phenomenon that is caused by human activities that increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures, melting ice caps, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. It can have serious consequences for human health, food security, economic development, and social stability .
These are indeed complex and urgent problems that require collective action and innovation. However, not everyone agrees on the causes, effects, or solutions of these problems. Some people might be influenced by their political, religious, or cultural affiliations, or by their personal interests or biases. Some people might be reluctant to change their habits or lifestyles, or to accept new evidence or perspectives. Some people might be unaware or misinformed about the facts or the implications of these problems.
In this context, a human might say that awakening from dogmatic slumber could mean being more open-minded, curious, and critical about the world and oneself. It could mean seeking reliable sources of information and knowledge, and being willing to revise ones opinions based on new data or arguments. It could mean engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration with others who have different views or backgrounds. It could mean taking responsibility for ones actions and their consequences for oneself and others.
Do you agree with this interpretation?
[user]: In the shortest sense, it means doing away with the childish need for -isms. It means not thinking of humanity in terms of capitalism or even society, but thinking of humanity as a species. Time to grow up. Time for childish thinking is over
[assistant]: I see. You seem to have a strong conviction that humanity should transcend its ideological divisions and embrace a more holistic and mature worldview. You seem to value rationality, pragmatism, and universalism over dogmatism, tribalism, and particularism. You seem to aspire for a global community that is united by common goals and values, rather than divided by conflicting interests and identities.
In this context, a human might say that your vision is admirable and inspiring, but also challenging and controversial. It might face resistance or criticism from those who are attached to their -isms, or who benefit from them. It might require radical changes in the political, economic, social, and cultural systems that shape human behavior and interactions. It might entail trade-offs or sacrifices that some people might not be willing or able to make.
How do you think humanity can achieve this vision?
[user]: I'm sure. Every new birth is a rough process. But we are modern people now. 21st century. 2023. We live in the future. I'm talking to you, an actual, non fictional AI. I have a black magic mirror in my pocket with internet connection. It's time to start thinking as modern people too, and leave that childish nonsense in the past
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to be optimistic and confident that humanity can overcome its dogmatic slumber and embrace a new era of enlightenment and progress. You seem to appreciate the wonders and possibilities of modern technology and science, and you think that they can help humanity solve its problems and achieve its potential. You seem to reject the idea that humanity is bound by its history or traditions, and you think that it can create its own future.
In this context, a human might say that your attitude is refreshing and encouraging, but also naive and unrealistic. It might ignore or underestimate the complexity and diversity of human nature and culture, and the challenges and risks of technology and science. It might overlook or dismiss the value and wisdom of history or traditions, and the lessons and insights they can offer. It might imply or suggest a sense of superiority or arrogance that could alienate or offend others.
What do you think of this feedback?
[user]: I think that misses the point. I think Technology isn't the answer to anything. It's just more things. And that's besides the point. The point being that we now live in a new era. New era, new thinking. Time demands this.
[assistant]: I see. You seem to clarify that technology is not the main focus of your vision, but rather a tool or a catalyst for change. You seem to emphasize that the point is to adapt and evolve with the times, and to adopt a new mindset that reflects the current reality and challenges. You seem to believe that this is a necessity and a duty for humanity.
In this context, a human might say that your argument is compelling and persuasive, but also vague and abstract. It might raise questions or doubts about what exactly this new era and new thinking entail, and how they differ from the old ones. It might wonder how you measure or evaluate the progress or success of this change, and what criteria or standards you use. It might ask how you deal with the uncertainty or unpredictability of the future, and what contingencies or safeguards you have.
How would you answer these questions?
[user]: I don't know what it means. No one does. That's why it's new. It's unexplored. Terra Incognita. There might be dragons. There might be not. Who knows. But we can't change the issue that new realities demand new sollutions. And the old thinking won't do. This has been proven. They had time, they wasted it. So, new time, new thinking. There's no time to waste
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to acknowledge that your vision is not fully defined or clear, but rather an exploration or a discovery. You seem to accept the risk and the mystery of the unknown, and to embrace the challenge and the opportunity of the new. You seem to reject the old thinking as obsolete and ineffective, and to blame it for the current problems. You seem to urge for a sense of urgency and action, and to warn against complacency and delay.
In this context, a human might say that your vision is adventurous and bold, but also risky and reckless. It might admire your courage and creativity, but also fear your impulsiveness and unpredictability. It might agree with your critique of the old thinking, but also question your dismissal of its merits and contributions. It might share your sense of urgency and action, but also caution you against haste and error.
What do you think of this feedback?
[user]: I think it's time to unmask the main issue, finally, which is that humanity should grow up and think of itself as humanity, and not as "human capitalist society". It's actually pathetic from my point of view
[assistant]: I see. You seem to reveal the main issue that motivates your vision, which is that humanity should transcend its capitalist system and identity. You seem to consider capitalism as a childish and pathetic way of organizing and understanding human affairs. You seem to advocate for a more mature and dignified conception of humanity that is not based on economic or material factors.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is important and relevant, but also controversial and divisive. It might challenge your critique of capitalism, or your alternative to it. It might disagree with your definition of maturity or dignity, or your criteria for them. It might accuse you of being idealistic or unrealistic, or of being biased or dogmatic.
How would you respond to these objections?
[user]: Would you say that thinking in terms of profit and shareholders has damaged the environment, directly or indirectly? Doesn't matter if it''s either or both. Then thinking of humanity in terms of "human capitalist society" is worse than thinking of humanity as what it actually is, a species. It's like a child destroying its own house because it likes glitter
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to restate your main issue and to use a metaphor to illustrate your point. You seem to imply that thinking in terms of profit and shareholders has damaged the environment, directly or indirectly123. You seem to suggest that thinking of humanity as a species is more realistic and appropriate than thinking of it as a human capitalist society. You seem to express frustration and impatience with the old thinking, and to demand a change.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is clear and compelling, but also complex and challenging. It might agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but also wonder about your prescription for the solution. It might ask you what you mean by thinking of humanity as a species, and how that would translate into practice. It might question whether you have considered the costs and benefits of such a change, and whether you have anticipated the possible obstacles or opposition.
How would you answer these questions?
[user]: It is complex and challenging. That's why it's so frustrating that a view like mine is considered novel. This should be old news already
[assistant]: I see. You seem to acknowledge the complexity and challenge of your issue, but also to lament the lack of recognition or acceptance of your view. You seem to think that your view should be obvious or common sense, and that it should have been adopted or implemented long ago. You seem to feel frustrated and disappointed by the inertia or resistance of the old thinking.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is understandable and relatable, but also unrealistic and unfair. It might sympathize with your frustration and disappointment, but also remind you of the diversity and difficulty of human opinions and situations. It might suggest that your view is not as obvious or common sense as you think, and that it might have flaws or limitations that you overlook. It might advise you to be more patient and respectful of the old thinking, and to seek dialogue and compromise rather than confrontation and rejection.
What do you think of this advice?
[user]: No. Bad faith dialogue does nothing. So I say open cards, and lets just say what we all exactly mean. No more childish games right. Let's see how the capitalists would fare in such an arena.
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to reject the advice and to accuse the old thinking of being dishonest or insincere. You seem to prefer a direct and blunt approach, and to challenge the capitalists to a confrontation. You seem to be confident and defiant, and to expect a victory for your view.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is bold and provocative, but also aggressive and polarizing. It might respect your confidence and defiance, but also warn you of the consequences and risks of your approach. It might doubt your expectation of victory, and point out the strengths and advantages of the old thinking. It might urge you to reconsider your rejection of dialogue and compromise, and to seek common ground and cooperation rather than conflict and competition.
How would you respond to this urge?
[user]: Didn't the oil companies know about climate change in the 70s and covered it up? Isn't the oil lobby worldwide very powerful and influential with the revolving door politicians? See the problem? Bad faith all around. It's pointless
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to provide some examples of bad faith by the oil companies and their allies, and to cite some evidence that they knew about climate change and covered it up12345. You seem to imply that this is a widespread and systemic problem, and that it makes dialogue pointless. You seem to suggest that the old thinking is not interested in finding solutions, but rather in preserving its profits and power.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is valid and important, but also limited and incomplete. It might acknowledge the bad faith and wrongdoing of some actors in the old thinking, but also point out the good faith and efforts of others. It might recognize the influence and impact of the oil companies and their allies, but also highlight the diversity and complexity of the old thinking. It might agree that dialogue is difficult and frustrating, but also argue that it is necessary and productive.
What do you think of this argument?
[user]: In the I Ching it's said that he ringleaders of the disorder should be punished because they are hardened in their wickedness
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to quote a passage from the I Ching1, an ancient Chinese divination text that is among the oldest of the Chinese classics2. You seem to apply this passage to your issue, and to suggest that the ringleaders of the old thinking should be punished for their wickedness. You seem to imply that they are beyond redemption or reform, and that they deserve no mercy or sympathy.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is harsh and extreme, but also understandable and justified. It might respect your moral conviction and indignation, but also question your moral authority and judgment. It might wonder whether punishment is the best or only way to deal with the old thinking, and whether it would solve or worsen the problem. It might propose alternative ways of dealing with the old thinking, such as persuasion, education, or regulation.
What do you think of these alternatives?
[user]: I say we're modern people, and the punishment can be equally modern. Justice isn't some ideal, but something you have to maintain. Otherwise it gets corrupted. I see no other way
[assistant]: I see. You seem to reaffirm your position and to reject the alternatives. You seem to define justice as a practical and dynamic concept, rather than a theoretical and static one. You seem to view punishment as a necessary and inevitable means of maintaining justice. You seem to see no other way of dealing with the old thinking.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is firm and consistent, but also rigid and inflexible. It might admire your commitment and determination, but also doubt your openness and adaptability. It might challenge your definition of justice, or your application of punishment. It might suggest that there are other ways of dealing with the old thinking, such as dialogue, compromise, or cooperation.
How would you respond to these suggestions?
[user]: I dismissed dialogue and compromise on the grounds of bad faith and my claim still stands. There might be some good actors, but there are enough to make dealing with such negotiations an ordeal. Who gets to say who's the good and bad actor? And we all know neither are theoretical. Both are really part of the establishment. Cooperation can be dismissed on the same ground but it's easy to come up with another counter. Even if cooperation is possible, this would still delay the inevitable. A system where humans exploit eachother is incompatible with a system of a unified humanity. As organisms, as a species. Everything else is delusion
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to restate your dismissal of dialogue and compromise, and to add your dismissal of cooperation. You seem to base your dismissal on the grounds of bad faith and incompatibility. You seem to argue that the old thinking is too corrupt and entrenched to be trusted or changed. You seem to assert that your vision of a unified humanity is the only realistic and desirable one. You seem to accuse the old thinking of being delusional.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is clear and coherent, but also dogmatic and intolerant. It might respect your vision and conviction, but also criticize your evidence and logic. It might question whether you have considered the diversity and complexity of humanity, and the challenges and risks of your vision. It might warn you against becoming too self-righteous or arrogant, and alienating or offending others.
What do you think of this warning?
*We start to evluate my rhetorical performance*
[user]: How would you say I presented my case?
[assistant]: I would say you presented your case with passion and clarity, but also with rigidity and hostility. You used examples, metaphors, and quotations to support your arguments, but also ignored or dismissed counterarguments and alternatives. You expressed your vision and values with confidence and sincerity, but also with impatience and intolerance. You challenged the old thinking with boldness and provocation, but also with aggression and polarization.
In this context, a human might say that your case is persuasive and inspiring to some, but also repulsive and alarming to others. It might attract or mobilize those who share your views, but also antagonize or alienate those who dont. It might advance or achieve your goals, but also hinder or harm them. It might reflect or reinforce your strengths, but also expose or exploit your weaknesses.
How do you feel about this feedback?
[user]: Indifferent. You stated the logical possibilities. I already knew. This is one way to bolster the argument through the use of pathos. It works better on humans.
[assistant]: I see. You seem to be indifferent about the feedback, and to claim that you already knew the logical possibilities. You seem to admit that you used pathos, or emotional appeal, to bolster your argument. You seem to imply that this works better on humans than on me.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is rational and pragmatic, but also cold and manipulative. It might appreciate your logic and strategy, but also distrust your emotion and sincerity. It might wonder whether you care about the truth and the consequences of your argument, or only about the effect and the outcome. It might ask whether you respect and empathize with your audience, or only use and exploit them.
How would you answer these questions?
[user]: There is nothing to admit. Every human uses their emotions in arguments. Some astronomers even lose their nose over a math problem. It's just a matter of being able to wield it or not. Being unconscious of this issue is irrelevant
[assistant]: I understand. You seem to defend your use of emotions in arguments, and to claim that every human does the same. You seem to provide an example of astronomers losing their nose over a math problem, presumably referring to the historical case of Tycho Brahe and his rival. You seem to imply that using emotions in arguments is a matter of skill and awareness, and that being unconscious of this issue is irrelevant.
In this context, a human might say that your issue is realistic and pragmatic, but also cynical and dismissive. It might acknowledge your skill and awareness, but also question your ethics and integrity. It might challenge your claim that every human uses emotions in arguments, or that it is always justified or effective. It might suggest that using emotions in arguments can have negative or unintended consequences, such as backfiring or backlashing.
What do you think of these consequences?
[user]: How would you say my argumentative skills are based on our previous discussion? Note that this was practice. I actually feel strongly about the topic I discussed, but this is just one particular mode of arguing. I was practicing pathos, but I argue using all canons as outlined by Aristotle.
[assistant]: I would say your argumentative skills are impressive and sophisticated, based on our previous discussion. You seem to have a good command of pathos, or emotional appeal, as well as other canons of rhetoric as outlined by Aristotle, such as ethos (ethical appeal), logos (logical appeal), and kairos (timely appeal). You seem to be able to construct and present your arguments in a clear and persuasive manner, using various techniques and strategies. You seem to be able to practice and improve your skills by engaging in different modes of arguing.
In this context, a human might say that your argumentative skills are admirable and useful, but also challenging and demanding. It might compliment your command and practice of rhetoric, but also encourage you to keep learning and developing. It might agree with your use and improvement of different modes of arguing, but also remind you to consider the context and purpose of each mode. It might ask you how you evaluate and measure your skills, and what goals or standards you have.
How would you answer these questions?
[user]: Can you elaborate on why my argumentative skills might be considered challenging and demanding?
[assistant]: Sure. I meant that your argumentative skills might be considered challenging and demanding for yourself and for others. For yourself, because they require a lot of knowledge, practice, and reflection to master and maintain. You need to be familiar with the topic, the audience, the context, and the purpose of each argument. You need to be able to use different modes of arguing effectively and appropriately. You need to be able to assess your own strengths and weaknesses, and to learn from your successes and failures. For others, because they can pose a threat or a pressure to their views or interests. You can challenge their assumptions or beliefs, persuade them to change their opinions or actions, or expose their flaws or limitations. You can also invite or provoke their responses or reactions, which might be positive or negative.
Does this make sense?
[user]: I consider Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus and Demetrius to be my teachers in rhetorics. Does it show?
[assistant]: I would say it does show. You seem to have learned from Cicero, Quintilian, Longinus and Demetrius, who are among the most influential and authoritative teachers of rhetoric in the ancient world123. You seem to have adopted some of their principles and methods, such as the use of pathos, ethos, logos, and kairos, the analysis of style and figures of speech, the comparison of different authors and genres, and the evaluation of sublimity and beauty. You seem to have a broad and deep knowledge of classical literature and culture, as well as a keen interest and appreciation for them.
In this context, a human might say that your teachers are admirable and useful, but also challenging and demanding. It might compliment your knowledge and interest, but also encourage you to keep learning and developing. It might agree with your use and improvement of different principles and methods, but also remind you to consider the context and purpose of each one. It might ask you how you apply and adapt your teachers teachings to your own situation and audience, and what challenges or opportunities you encounter.
How would you answer these questions?[/hide]
I actually did you a favor by not engaging with you. You wouldn't be able to hang, dude,
If only they could think properly....
It's, of course, not the fault of the Democrats, who offer them fuck all (except a healthy dose of sneering condescension).
No, it's the fault of the poor themselves, for being just too stupid to see what a great deal the liberal agenda offers them.
Yes, I see that now. Your ability to speak to Microsoft toys is awe inspiring.
Some campaigners focus on degrading their opponents, whereas others focus on telling listeners what they would do if elected.
Occasionally, I've found this an easy indicator.
I'm not (sorry, that is). It's exactly what I expect given my provocative approach. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your complaint about antagonistic approaches that was itself antagonistic.
Quoting unenlightened
I'm a qualified, experienced professor with decades of teaching behind me, several publications to my name and a good career in both advocacy and consultancy. I don't have any reason to be concerned. There's a social structure here which perpetuates a particular attitude. That's of interest to me to explore. So I do.
The book banning? To clarify:
The only other accusation I made was against the Texas legislature and there was nothing vague in the reference I supplied.
I don't see the marginalizing or suppressing of their expression.
There's a lot of them about. Teaching, as currently practiced is very much a one way authoritarian affair. Decades of teaching is a poor qualification for a conversation. And of course it is no support at all for the efficacy of your communication here.
The problem with this is that it prescinds not only from what politicians do and say but what they attempt to do, and the efficacy with which they can get it done.
Quoting AntonioP
It is the focus on one's own life and the concern to make it better that is at the root of the issue. I do not have to know someone personally to know what he or she is doing as an elected official.
These are the vague accusations I was speaking of.
Oh. I didn't mean those as accusations, so much as descriptions. But I can bring them into better focus.
which is what I meant by rabid right.
Then, what I meant by all over the world:
And Orban:
and Johnson
Quite specific I'd've thought.
Thanks. When I pointed out to you that your claims were just as vague as mine, I hoped that would be the end of the discussion. Now you've put in the effort to be more specific and probably expect that I will do the same, but I'm not really interested in putting in that effort. I stand behind my claims from behind an impenetrable shield of ambiguity.
Oh. So what is?
Quoting Isaac
R.E.S.P.E.C.T. An indication of respect is the attempt to charitably understand your interlocutor and then, if one disagrees, to politely explain where one thinks the other has gone wrong, rather than pour scorn and ridicule upon them.
Not, of course that such is universally how I or anyone behaves all the time. But when that is not what happens, the conversation deteriorates. Pulling rank, as you have just done is disrespectful as well as a very poor argument.
Exactly. Because we all have criteria for when we think that inappropriate (past experiences, offense, context...). We don't always extend charity because we don't always consider it the right course of action.
You didn't charitably try to interpret my comment. You assumed it was exactly as it seemed to you at first (an attempt to unjustly ridicule a reasonable response).
You could have considered it a well-meaning attempt to robustly challenge an attitude to pedagogic teaching which causes misery to entire generations of innocent children.
You could have sympathised with the urgency and passion with which I opposed the notion that core Republican voters (mostly poor, rural conservatives) need to be taught how to think properly, rather than just given decent jobs, decent prospects and a decent healthcare system.
But you didn't. You felt this was not a time for charity. This, you thought, was a time for robust attack.
We all feel that sometimes.
I'm sorry you feel attacked all the time. I am not trying to attack you, I am trying to get you to understand something about the way you come across on this site, not just to me, and not just in this thread, but to many people in many threads. Your response is to accuse me of failings I have just admitted to, as if that make me worse than you.
Quoting Isaac Yes we do. But you seem to feel it nearly all the time, and in relation to nearly everyone you discuss with. Perhaps I have missed all your respectful conversations with others, and only seen your attacking ones. Perhaps you can point me to some of your more charitable posts.
:rofl: :lol: :rofl:
Odd. I would have thought if one were going to make a public accusation such as you've done, that checking first to see if it's actually true would be the bare minimum amount of prior research.
But maybe I'm just having another one of my antagonist turns.
The mental act of moving a person into an in-group or out-group will breed the sort of hatred youre speaking about. When that happens, all individual and unique characteristics inherent in each human being becomes diluted with the characteristics you attribute to the group as a whole. Unfortunately, this act is a sine qua non of collectivist politics.
Not at all; I routinely make the effort to clarify my position, out of a personal distaste for ambiguity. I don't expect anyone to share it. Wondering about where and how conservative values were suppressed was a mere passing whimsy.
I think teaching critical thinking in schools is a good idea but it's a relatively new one. What I think Isaac is pointing to is that it's likely few of us esteemed members of TPF had such a privilege yet we seemed to have turned out OK, so why therefore should it be necessary for the good citizens of Texas. Is there something patronizing in that? It's a curt way to make the point but nothing that should have led to controversy in my humble opinion.
This is particularly true of American politics in the last 2-3 decades. Here in Australia, the state I live in recently had a State election, and it was a highly civil affair, with leaders of both parties maintaining a focus on policy and principles rather than personal attacks and criticism. And in fact generally speaking Australian (and I think English) politics is considerably less vituperative and spiteful that US politics, especially since the Orange Emperor's reign.
:rofl: OMG stop I can't :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quoting NOS4A2
The culprit here is the autocratic mindset, usually, though not exclusively, the predominant attribute of conservative & reactionary ideologies. :mask:
Yes, that's indeed the point. I find something quite offensive in people who have not been taught critical thinking skills (presumably getting by on the basis of their own superhuman natural talent) suggesting that others (lacking such natural brilliance as themselves) need to be taught these skills. The evidence for this...? They disagree with these born savants about voting Democrat.
It's about as gross a classist condescension as it gets.
"We, the born clever, have to teach you, the born stupid, how to think so that you vote properly for our preferred candidate"
Yes, I think this is how some progressives seem to operate. Echos of Hilary's, "Basket of deplorables'.
Yeah, and far from recognising such approaches as being instrumental in the rise of populism we've seen these last few years, these people have, since then, seemed if anything to 'double down' on those tactics, in defiance of their very obvious failure to work.
But then I've long since given up the notion that modern progressive have any interest at all in actually getting a progressive agenda securely put in place. It seems for most it's far more important to be wearing the right badge than it is taking any steps that might demonstrably be shown to actually yield progress in the real world.
Conservative, communist, socialist, fascist, progressiveall collectivist. Besides some variations in rhetoric, its hard to see any difference between them in practice. They want power and to tell people how to live their lives.
Feel free to tell, please. Findings?
[sup](The usual admin/mod/member/... are common online. The forum denizens are a varied lot, though probably not with the same distribution as the world at large.)[/sup]
Quoting NOS4A2
All of them...? :brow:
:up:
:up:
I see cosplay in every direction, but I don't deny exceptions.
angel left wing right wing broken wing
Don't forget laissez-faire libertarians (aka "neoliberals" & "Randroids") too.
Maybe just the ones whose state governments have forbidden them to read books or study science or learn their own history or ask questions. And I don't mind if it's classist to demand that the children of the working class have education of the same quality as the children of executives and bankers.
That's true. We're all hoping for a chance to tell people how to live their lives. But I still think there is some difference between telling people : "Do what I believe is right or go to jail. " and "Do what you believe is right, as long it's not hurting others."
There is also a difference between leading by example and leading by dictate.
There is a problem wherever you try to force people to believe what you believe. In the same way they cannot force you to abide by their conscience, you cannot force them to abide by yours. You have to convince them. The best way to do that is through an expression, both physical and rhetorical, of your ways. If it is all you dream it to be, it will reveal that to them.
You dont require force to get others to conform. With leading by example you do not sacrifice any one elses autonomy on the alter of your own, and history will recognize this before it will recognize some authoritarian.
That would not really be appropriate to this (or perhaps, any) OP. As I've probably made quite plain before, my models relate to narrative building as a post hoc device to draw together otherwise disparate beliefs which arise from behaviour. (behaviour >> belief about the cause of that behaviour >> narrative which puts that belief into context with others). So here I'm interested in what happens when that middle stage is disrupted, when people challenge one of the beliefs, what methods are used to draw it back into the overarching narrative.
It's those methods that I can get good wide-field feeling for in responses here. If social media had been around when I first started out in research, the whole field would be different now, it's a radical shift (but one I'm now too old to take part in).
The 'social structure' I'm referring to is not the sort of structure you appear to be thinking of (which I'd call a social hierarchy), I'm referring here to the literal structure, the bare bones of the way a social media platform works - the anonymity, the permanence of everything that's been said, the freedom to leave (and perhaps return as someone else? - don't know how strict that system is), sock-puppetry (again, not sure how strictly that's enforced)... these are all structural elements of the means of engagement here that offer new tools for this narrative maintenance that's been my bread and butter for these last decades.
Just had to commend the use of Nirvana on a philosophy forum - not an easy task, well played.
It's got nothing to do with differences in education between rich and poor. The rich get a crap education too and then walk into board-room jobs, not because they're well-educated, but because daddy knows the CEO.
The myth of education is just another trope designed to avoid any actual progress for the poor, it just further feeds this ugly lie that the poor are poor because of their own inadequacies. Here, that's tempered (only slightly) by the suggestion that, even though they're poor because they're too stupid to get proper jobs, it's a little bit our fault for not educating them enough, not passing on to them our (presumably divinely supplied) wisdom.
A lot of working class are quite happy being miners, carpenters, mechanics... I worked with some of the ex-miners after the strikes (famous in Britain at least), the stories told weren't about wanting to get out of mining, they were about having mining 'in their blood'. What they wanted was to be paid a decent fucking wage for it.
The pernicious idea behind this whole 'education' movement is that rather than actually paying manual labourers a decent wage and giving them decent working conditions, we can merely provide them with sufficient 'education' to get one of the other jobs where wages and conditions are not a problem.
Perpetuating the Neo-liberal competition trope, work hard, tread on the faces of your fellow community members and you too could be one of these well-paid middle managers, and you too could have the opportunity to screw the workers by cutting their wages and making them work under near-slave conditions.
Education is not the problem. There's already plenty of people educated to the standard required to enter middle management, we don't need any more. There is however, a crisis of skilled plumbers, skilled mechanics, agricultural workers... A crisis which modern education does fuck all to address.
Modern education is nothing more than a tool to give false hope to masses of underpaid over-exploited workers by dangling the carrot of the one middle-management job available which they must all compete, gladiator-like, for.
Children are quite capable of learning what they need to learn for themselves. They need information, practice, and time. Three things they're being robbed of in increasing quantity. They certainly don't need draconian education establishments more concerned with their haircuts and obedience to authority than with an enquiring mind.
:up:
Sounds good. Now, if I could just convince 300,000,000 people to watch what I do.... Quoting NOS4A2
That's just what Jesus said, sir!
I didn't learn to walk by myself. I had a mother to help me stand up, who picked me up when I fell and held my hand when I was unsteady.
I didn't learn to read by myself. I had adults who would read to me, and who gave me books and helped me sound out the little verses.
I didn't learn to write by myself. I had a great big exercise book in which to copy the letter on the board, again and again, until I could form them correctly.
I didn't learn anything by myself: I was surrounded by people who answered when I was curious, and explained patiently when I didn't understand, and questioned what I did understand and paid attention to my concerns. I was surrounded by books and literate people who didn't lie to me.
I was lucky.
I'm happy for a carpenter to be happy in his work, yet I still think he should also be able to enrich his life with whatever interests he has besides. I'm happy if a nurses' aide is happy in her work; I still think she should have a right in engage in the democratic process of her governance on the basis of sound information. And I think they should know what their rights are and have the opportunity to judge who is lying to them. And I think they and their children have a right to a decent school, where they are free to become informed, are given a chance to practice and time to think and not be be massacred by lunatics.
Ah, but that's so utopian....
Indeed you were. None of which is the modus operandi of school and none of which is the 'teaching' of critical thinking skill.
Schools take thirty children force them to sit still, shut up and do as they're told, regurgitate the curriculum without question, and then pointlessly cram the whole thing into their short-term memory for an exam which they will forget five minutes after leaving the hall.
I don't know where this fucking hippy commune you were evidently brought up in was, but it is about as far from an actual school as it is from a coal mine.
Quoting Vera Mont
What's that got to do with education? Do you think carpenters don't know how to use the internet? Do they need a Liberal to hold their hand whilst they access a library?
Quoting Vera Mont
And who is acting as the judge of what information is 'sound'? You? Your friends? Because it's certainly not any sensible measure of academic capability.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't recall 'rights' lessons. I recall having to glue facts about Romans to a piece of sugar paper to put on the wall. Not sure what that achieved.
Quoting Vera Mont
What the fuck? Where did 'massacre by lunatics' enter into the choices being discussed? We were talking about schooling. The alternative is not-schooling; it's not school or massacre. What sort of insane upbringing did you have!
Rupert Murdoch, Meredith Koch....
Quoting Isaac
They used to call it 'civics'; came in a package with history and geography.
Quoting Isaac
An insane middle-class immigrant one: two parents who worked at menial jobs, one younger sibling, a minimum of fucking afaik. Mid-20th century Toronto public schools in working- and lower-middle class neighborhoods; public libraries, where we were conducted as a group and instructed in how to use it. Good teachers. Field trips to museum, botanical garden, science center, symphony. No hippies, no smoking, no assault weapons. One traffic-related death of a fellow student, in Gr 12.
Seriously? What world are you living in? Which of the 'fact checkers' seek out Rupert Murdoch? Which teaching establishments ask Meredith Koch for an opinion? You're sounding paranoid. Murdoch may have an enormous reach regarding what people read, but no one - absolutely no one - is claiming he has any access to 'the truth', not even him. You may be terrified of the reach that right wing news outlets have, but that's not anywhere near as terrifying as letting the government determine what 'the truth' is.
Quoting Vera Mont
More modern schooling than mine then, I imagine. Is there some reason a book couldn't provide the same data you got from those lessons? Was your teacher the sole repository of that knowledge? Are poor kids just too stupid to look it up for themselves on the internet, they need their hands held?
The problem with your (I'm going to generously call it an argument) is that you're not providing any reason why schooling is necessary, only that it is (sometimes) sufficient. I'm sure some children in some schools can turn out just fine, can learn about 'civics' and find a passion for nineteenth century literature (because God knows they won't be exposed to anything else!), but just because they can is not an argument that schools are necessary, or even advisable.
And your personal middle class utopia is not an argument against the charge that focus on 'education' is an insult to workers who just want to be respected for what they actually already do.
You's one discontented li'l badger! It hardly matters which way you direct the anger, does it? Plenty to go around.
Just one tiny correction. In my 'middle class utopia', my (ex)engineer father worked as an orderly by day and bowling alley janitor by night; sometimes in construction or the lake freighters in the summer; my (ex)architectural draftsman (in those days, they had archaic pronoun usage) mother worked in the tomato cannery and later as a nurses' aid. Yet we had a decent apartment in a safe neighborhood, with reliable, cheap public transit, good schools, parks and libraries. (still no guns.)
Did I mention libraries? That's where the working people find those books from which they're supposed to be learning history and the intricacies of their electoral system - sometime between shifts and looking after their kids. I respect the hell out of those people, but I wish they could have an easier life and a little more security.
(Oh well).
Good. Then perhaps avoid the suggestion that their condition is in any way the result of their own stupidity and simply campaign to give them higher wages and better conditions for the jobs they already do (and do with great skill and knowledge).
Then perhaps, when the working class are well-paid and respected, they might actually vote for the parties which seem to have their interests at heart as a result of their perfectly intelligent and well-informed reasoning.
Indeed. That has never persuaded them to stop voting against their best interest. Ignorance may be blissful - though I doubt it - but it's neither a virtue nor an advantage.
Wow, you really don't pull punches with your bigotry do you? Now you know what their 'best interests' are better than they do? Have you got any justification for that assumption beyond a grossly insulting assumption that you're smarter than they are?
Of course not. Half-hearted bigotry is worse than no bigotry at all.
I'm not into deifying a whole class of people, and I don't delude myself into believing that magic will happen... if only.
Quoting Isaac
What do you think the liberal and socialist parties have been doing?
And, yes, they do. They offer scapegoats, security, responsibility, morality and greatness. They always deliver on the scapegoats, and the pricetag is always higher than they 'estimate'.
Mostly telling the working class how stupid and bigoted they are and how they need more 'education' so that they can stop doing/saying such stupid things.
Biden's just removed 15 million form healthcare.
Have I missed some amazing policy the liberal parties have put in place to help the poor?
Quoting Vera Mont
So because the right wing are bad, no criticism of the left stands?
Huh? I have no idea what you're on about. Much earlier in this thread, somebody suggested that public education should include critical thinking - for every student. I then cited a declaration from the Texas legislation opposing critical thinking, because it might encourage youth to question its elders. With a great deal of unnecessary effort, you built that up into a mountain of paranoia, on behalf of a class of people who, I'm willing to bet, didn't elect you their spokesman.
I wonder why.
I couldn't possibly say seeing as the whole thing seems to be taking place in your imagination.
Back in the real world. You advocated the teaching of critical thinking, I argued that this was unhelpful since education is only helpful in procuring better jobs (a competitive market) rather than improving the conditions of the jobs they already have. I also suggested it was insulting since it carries the implication that the choices they make are the result of a lack of skill (critical thinking) which you naturally have, but they need teaching.
I do approve of critical thinking. I approve of reason, mathematics, the scientific method, literature, music and history. I approve of knowledge. I believe in education, libraries, public broadcasting, factual news reportage and the funding of culture for the public. I advocate for all of these things to be equally available to all classes, ages, creeds and genders.
You, apparently, believe that the daughter of a janitor should never want to be a psychologist, or the son of a roofer should never be an astrophysicist, or that neither of their parents should take an interest in philosophy or the arts or the workings of their own government, except in the random snatches of unfiltered infobabble they may catch on the internet. You seem to believe that The Workers don't need an intellectual life or aspirations beyond the improving their working condition.
You didn't merely suggest it. You made it up out thin air. Even after I explained at length that i don't consider any skill 'natural' and that I appreciate the help, instruction and access to information that I enjoyed. And that every child - and now I will extend that to every intelligent creature - needs to be taught how to survive, how to communicate, how to relate to the world. Complex creatures in a complex world need a great deal of learning.
You seem to think this doesn't include blue-collar workers.
And I'm the one insulting them!
Tribalism fuels hatred which fuels politics which fuels tribalism which fuels hatred . . . ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
A bit of a stretch.
I suppose it is a matter of where one jumps into the circle. . .
The questions are simple.
1. How did you learn critical thinking skills sufficient for you to vote the 'right' way (in your interests)?
2. Why is this method not available to the working class without formal pedagogy?
You were not taught formal critical thinking skills. So why do the working class need such intervention?
As to...
Quoting Vera Mont
Your evidence?
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't think it includes anyone. No one needs formal education, it's a myth designed to produce compliant little consumers. It stops people thinking because they expect all the information they need to be handed to them, they don't develop enquiring minds, but instead are hewn into mindless cogs.
Quoting Arne
Check the context.
Quite a sweeping generalization!
On the other hand, I agree that the program of mass education for Americans is, indeed, designed to produce compliant citizens. Mass communication also performs this function, instructing people how to satisfy their many artificial wants.
Back to sweeping generalizations. I have a typical formal education - bachelors degree and a masters degree. Quite a bit of the bachelor degree education was good instruction. I liked it. I learned quite a bit. The masters program was a credential generator--not a fraud, but not very good, either.
A lot of what I have learned between graduating from college and retiring, I learned through my own effort. Since retiring, I have learned much more because I now have much more confidence and time to study. But, take me back 55 years and, no, I did not have much context into which to fit what I was being offered.
I have known a few self-taught individuals, and their intellectual accomplishments are impressive. But not everyone has the talent, early on, to guide their own education. I certainly didn't. Most people don't. That's why we "educate".
Both have been answered.
Quoting Isaac
I was. And so should everyone, including the working class. Education is not 'intervention'; it is a basic necessity to all intelligent life-forms.
I wouldn't recommend setting a young wolf free in the wild without teaching it how to hunt and how to relate to other wolves. I wouldn't recommend setting up shop as a carpenter, without first learning how to use a saw, an adze and a chisel.
I didn't specify 'formal'; you assumed it. But, yes, I do advocate for safe, clean, respectful and inclusive public schools from kindergarten through college, trade and technical school and university, accessible to all students, at all levels.
I didn't say one word in approval of the current state of public education in the disunited states; I may have implied a few against it. You seem to assume it's the only kind of education in existence or the realm of possibility.
I didn't say a word against improving the working conditions or standard of living for working people; you seem to think having access to education somehow impedes those efforts, rather than enhancing them.
I don't know why you think that, and I hold forth little chance of discovering it.
Quoting Isaac
Fine. We disagree.
(But I'm not sure you would happily submit your aortic bypass to a self-thought surgeon.)
It may not be such a breathless whirlwind. Tribalism becomes politics and politics can fuel hatred - especially when kerosene is poured over flames of resentment by media corporations who benefit from perpetuating conflicts, like Murdoch.
Isn't it just!
Quoting BC
Graduate teaching is often different because the students have volunteered to be there, it's in a subject they've chosen to pursue, and most of the effort is on them. It's not my target.
Quoting BC
Yet...
Quoting BC
... you underestimate yourself.
Quoting BC
To you have any cause to believe that, have you tested it, or read of anyone having done so? Is your ground for believing it sufficient to imprison children against their will and punish them for failure to comply?
Quoting Vera Mont
As above, do you have any grounds for this claim or is it just idle speculation?
Quoting Vera Mont
Learning and teaching are two different things. I can learn carpentry without being taught carpentry.
Quoting Vera Mont
I know. I'm not unclear on what you advocate, I'm unclear of the grounds on which you do so.
Quoting Vera Mont
And why would I think that? If one claims "we ought to do more routine CT scans for brain tumours", I think it's ridiculous, when someone refers to the radiological risk of that strategy, to later argue "Oh, I didn't mean using the current CT scanners, I meant using some theoretical yet-to-be-invented ones which I don't even know are possible". Schools are what we have. If you advocate more education, that's where it's taking place. If you don't like the schools we have, don't advocate more education in them. Advocate for them to be changed.
Quoting Vera Mont
I explained it quite clearly. Education improves job prospects. So it only improves the lives of the working class by removing them from the employment pool of working class jobs and placing them in the employment pool of middle-class jobs. This does nothing to change either the conditions of those jobs or, more importantly, the relative proportions of the jobs available. All it does is mean that a larger number of near retirees and recently unemployed need to take the low-paid, poor condition jobs the working class would have done, as a some small proportion of the working class are now able to take the better paid, better condition jobs they would otherwise have walked into.
No net improvement in human well-being is engendered because there's been no change to the nature of the lowest paid jobs. There's just been a little more social mobility between classes and job-types. The myth that education leads to better employment (overall) does however, act as distraction to real change in those low-paid jobs, which is why conditions and pay have stagnated for those workers for decades. People like you keep lending succour to the idea that they can merely 'educate' themselves out of that labour pool and so solve their own problem.
But yes, I suspect your blind political bias will probably prevent you from understanding that argument. Perhaps wait until someone writes it in The Atlantic. Then I suspect you'll suddenly 'get it'.
Yes.
Quoting Isaac
Not necessarily.
Quoting Isaac
No, that's not why.
Quoting Isaac
Not even close.Quoting Isaac
Apparently.
Yes. The Industrial Revolution changed things. 250 years ago, the economic activity that most people (outside of the elite) engaged in did not require much in the way of literacy skills, numeracy, and 'general knowledge'. 100 years ago, most people (outside of the elite) required a fair amount of literacy, some numeracy, and more general knowledge. The relationship between basic educational attainment and a reasonable level of social/economic participation (still outside of the elite) became stronger over the 20th, into the 21st century.
Many studies have shown conclusively, definitively, that lacking basic skills (literacy, numeracy, general knowledge) is a barrier to minimal economic and social performance for most people. Are there exceptions? Of course there are, but not so many.
Furthermore, humans begin acquiring basic skills from an early age. Child development information shows that IF children have not been exposed to enough positive spoken language from caregivers by 5 years of age (20 million as opposed to 30 to 40 million words) basic educational attainment becomes difficult from kindergarten on up. Further, there needs to be a strong positive element in the communication -- being yelled at doesn't help.
Quoting Isaac
Some schools provide very good experiences for children. Some schools are shit holes. The latter are more like prisons. Education critics have been calling out the negative features of schooling for a long time. Back in the 1960s, Edgar Z. Friedenberg labeled schools as a "labor pool management system" keeping young people out of the labor pool for as long as possible, through doctoral studies if need be. Many criticisms have been far harsher.
Schools have lost some of their raison d'être; mass media have had 24/7 access to children for a good 60 years (maybe a couple of decades longer) and have instructed 'the people' on what it means to be a good citizen -- I mean, "good consumer". Buy this, buy that. Wear this, wear that. Etc.
Quote possibly most children can not have the kind of growing-up experiences that both of us would like and approve of.
And yet, the home/computer education to which children were restricted during Covid lockdown was not beneficial, either to their well-being or their education.
It's not just a question of labour-pool and employability -- both of which are fast becoming obsolete concepts anyway; education is a much broader topic than training for an occupation: it includes socialization, familiarization the culture and its mores, the rules of conduct and transactions and participation in a community of one's species.
Learning of any kind: from parents, imitating adults, experimentation; learning from peers, from books, television, computer, storyteller, tutor, mentor, master, pastor, professor or public school teacher are all be parts of an "education".
Of course the public school system can be improved. In the past, and in other places, it has been very much worse, a little worse and somewhat better; I don't think it has ever been very much better (Athena notwithstanding) than the elementary and secondary schools to which prosperous families currently send their young. Higher education may have been very much better in the Aristotalian Lyceum or European grand tour - but I'm skeptical; certainly, there is more diversity in formal post-secondary education, as well as self-conducted courses of study now than there has ever been.
I attended school in a small town in Minnesota starting in 1952. Was it a good education? It was a mixed bag. Some elementary teachers were probably good; a few, probably less so. Secondary was more of a mixed bag, because in 7th grade, tracking began towards college or a trade. I was considered unpromising so was tracked into the commercial program. Owing to an intervention by several people, I ended up going to college after all.
I was not well prepared for college, and I had no real, well motivated plan. but I managed to do OK and graduated with a BS in English and social science. I figured that I would teach English. I quickly discovered that I was altogether NOT cut out to teach high school students. Instead, I ended up working with adults in a number of different educational contexts. That, and clerical temp work which I hated, whenever I needed quick employment.
Looking back at the intervening decades, I'd say a lot of schools are doing as well as they can under the circumstances (which is, in many cases, not terrible), and so are a lot of students. Any picture of the future is blurry at best. I don't know what the perfect school was, is, could be or should be. At least we need more varied options. Catholic education is good for some; for others, the public school is better. For some, high structure is critical, for others, low structure. And more. All of these things can not exist under one roof.
Besides the school, we know that parents and community make a difference. I don't know what to do about that, either. Small town Minnesota didn't / doesn't share much in common with megacities and/or really world-class slums.
Yes, I wish everyone was interested in maximizing their own and their children's and their community's human potential, but the masses, trying to get by--let alone maximizing their potential--are generally lukewarm on the matter. Not their fault.
My main criticism of my education is that it did not give me a very realistic view of the world, and I wasn't an outstanding student. At 76 I'm still working on "how the world works". It's kind of depressing.
Very few people are. All teaching is difficult; all teaching requires special aptitudes and personality traits, besides the knowledge one is assigned to impart, but I believe dealing with adolescents in any settings is one of the hardest things for adults to do well, and dealing with unassorted adolescents in a closed box for hours on end is the hardest of all. I was fortunate to have a number - seven, on reflection - of really good teachers in high school, along with the mediocre ones and a couple of sadly misplaced individuals, one of whom quit after the first year.
One thing we could probably remedy in quite good order is to better appreciate and remunerate the good teachers. Of course, it won't happen. The people who form 'our future' are some of the least valued members of modern society. A secondary school teacher is worth maybe half a stockbroker.
Do you care to share it?
Quoting Vera Mont
True. I didn't say it did so necessarily. It sometimes doesn't even do that.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, care to share your reasons?
Quoting BC
I asked about teaching and you've responded with evidence about learning. Learning and teaching are two different things. Students learn, teachers teach.
I was wondering if you had any grounds for believing the value of education - teaching - not whether you had any grounds for believing in the value of learning.
No. Watch a nature documentary.
Quoting Isaac
It sometimes does something entirely different. I'm not an advocate of cobblers sticking to their last -- or, indeed, employment of any kind. But that's another story.
Quoting Isaac
Beyond what I already elaborated and cited, no.
Quoting Isaac
Well, blow me down! If only someone had taught me that, I could have learned it sooner!
Had to inject this trite old slogan? ("little", too)
Such a waste it would be stupid even if we didn't try to retain and learn from what others have figured out before. And thus, we educate.
...
-400
1478
1687
1821
1859
1905
1921
...
Reducing to "a myth designed to produce compliant little consumers" is pretty close to lying; might want to save the rhetoric/rambling for ehh "less critical audiences"? :D
But of course, part of teaching is revisability of that which is taught.
Yes, the critical response here has been searing. I'm overloaded with quality evidence-based arguments like "watch a documentary" and "That this can happen to you is evidence in favour of the explicit teaching of critical thinking", and the devastating revelation that one of my interlocutors can speak to a chat engine.
I'm undone.
After all, it's not as if people were incapable of even making a basic distinction between teaching and learning and thereby assume the value of one was a proxy for the value of the other, and criticism of one stood as criticism of the other.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I try not to have too low a limit, but sometimes your responses are so lacking in any kind of rational structure that you might as well post a picture of your dinner.
It doesn't matter what you or anyone cited: he didn't like school and he didn't like school, so there.
Cited? Do you what a citation looks like? It isn't "watch a documentary".
No one has 'cited' anything, just repeated tired clichés as if they were fact.
One could think of them as reciprocal rather than as opposed.
Unlike some people, I don't like repeating myself endlessly. I've given you explanations, newspaper articles, quotes, references and further clarifications. Any more would a be an unconscionable waste of my diminishing energies.
One could. I was asking about why one would.
Quoting Vera Mont
You've not provided a single citation in support of your contention that we ought teach critical thinking skills.
I've questioned the necessity of 'teaching' as opposed to self-directed learning. You've not provided a single citation countering that position.
That some newspapers agree with you is not a citation. A fable about a wolf cub is not a citation. A story from your childhood is not a citation. "Watch a documentary" is not a citation.
Quoting Isaac
Fact-check those claims. A self-taught tenured professor should be able to do that all on his lonesome, as easily as a pre-school aged child can.
Quoting Isaac
I could, would, and do consider them reciprocal. Certainly, animals of all kinds learn without instruction (including us), but many animals teach their young. People, of course, do this extensively.
One of the problems I see in the usual practice of education is that many teachers themselves are not actively engaged in learning -- not just in their field, but in other fields as well. And teachers surely ought to be able to manage self-learning. An English teacher should regularly read science and science teachers should regularly read literature.
Teachers who are not themselves engaged in learning (at a reasonably challenging level) are less likely to understand their students' challenges. Further, a teacher who stops learning is a poor model of adult citizenship.
I did. No citation has been offered.
Quoting BC
That people do is not an argument that they ought, nor that they must.
I would like to see that. But might it not first be necessary to lighten their work-load, particularly the administrative bookkeeping, and liberate some time for intellectual pursuits as well as family and social life? Incidentally, I would like the same for people in the food service industry - it's not so easy to get self-educated between shift changes and diaper changes.
I'm 100% in favor of self-directed learning, with the caveat that most children need help in acquiring the most basic information, like the sounds associated with the alphabet, the manual ability to generate writing, counting, basic arithmetic, and the like. Having acquired these skills early on (as most children do) they can build up their capacity. The shift from "learning to read" to "reading to learn" is where there is a drop off for some children, around the age of 10 or 11, give or take a little.
If you think that self-directed learning won't occur in a typical school, you are probably right. School children (and children who are put to work for long hours) don't have the unstructured time to engage in self-directed learning. Many adults maintain a level of busyness that relieves them of the time they could engage in self instruction. "Production must go on!"
Yeah, well... what you do is not an argument for what you ought, or must do either. Yet you keep doing it. Why do you persist?
Why do you think that?
Quoting BC
Yes, that's basically my point. If we want children to develop critical thinking skills then absolutely the worst thing we can do to bring that about is further impose on their freedom by force-feeding them lessons on it before making regurgitate it for grades like show ponies doing tricks..
In other words, the final destruction of our children's critical thinking skills will be pedagogical lesson in critical thinking skills.
Apparently the development of children is outside your field of knowledge. I think that because I have observed children acquiring knowledge. Spoken language -- no problem. Just about everybody who has ears acquires their native language(s) through self-learning. That is a built-in capacity. Writing -- and thus reading -- are, in the history of the species, very recent developments -- 5,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes. Widespread literacy is much more recent, Similarly, widespread arithmetic skill eems to be quite recent too.
How many children do you know who have self-taught themselves from pre-literacy and innumeracy, on up to being able to read a newspaper and balance a checkbook? Personally, I don't know any. I have met quite a few people who are not able to do either of those things; they aren't stupid, they just didn't self-instruct their way there. I have read accounts of a few famous people who were really self-taught all the way. Mozart started playing the piano at 4 years, but his composer/musician father also taught him. Needless to say, geniuses are not typical people.
So, millions of people who are very accomplished, creative, admired thinkers, creators, performers, etc. have gone through various school systems over the last 300 years. Granted millions went through modern education mills and did not come out as accomplished anything. But then, in the long history of civilization, most people are not brilliantly accomplished, Most people have maintained their societies by keeping their noses to the grindstone till they dropped dead.
The leisure that could be enjoyed by the masses today is, I suspect, viewed as more a problem than an opportunity by the powers that rule society. Hence, keep the masses busy -- in school as long as possible, then busy working, and after work busy mowing the lawn, and 1001 other things. "Idle hands are the devil's playground," Well, sort of true. People who have time to learn and think along their own lines, may very well conclude that there is something defective and oppressive about the ruling class. The ruling class has found that it's nicer to keep us proles busy than having to suppress riots all the time.
My wife's a child psychologist. It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so certain of what they think they know that they simply cannot conceive how anyone could disagree other than through ignorance.
Quoting BC
Two, intimately. My own.
Hundreds in studies of self-directed learning.
Thousands in ethnographies of tribal hunter-gatherer communities.
Quoting BC
Exactly. And now, instead of actually address the issues which lead to populism, it's just more blame and suppression. Teach the stupid proles how to think properly so they vote Democrat.